• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Judges

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Next time you hear someone complaining that the Dems are obstructing Bush's judicial appointments, remember this one. Link below.

"Sen. Sam Brownback, who wants to champion social conservatives in the presidential race, said Tuesday he wants a Senate panel to re-question a judicial nominee who attended a same-sex union ceremony."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/19/brownback.judge.ap/index.html?eref=rss_politics
 

Texan

Well-known member
Thanks for pointing that out. If that's really the way Brownback is, he's looking more like presidential material all the time.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Texan said:
Thanks for pointing that out. If that's really the way Brownback is, he's looking more like presidential material all the time.

Sounds good to me. Split that Republican vote right down the middle. :D
 

Texan

Well-known member
Disagreeable said:
Sounds good to me. Split that Republican vote right down the middle. :D
Anybody that I've heard mentioned for the Republicans will either split them, or make them stay home. The best things conservatives could do is to find a strong, liberal, third party candidate to put up. Sort of a liberal Ross Perot. Maybe I'll just write-in your name. :p
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brownback also has been criticized for his proposal that Neff be required to recuse herself from gay marriage cases. Legal scholars said such a deal would infringe on the separation of the legislative and judicial branches of government.

Maybe she should just agree to that- and then after appointment say that she had her fingers crossed :eek: - since that seems to be the pattern all the politicians follow when running for office... :(

The Dems and Repubs both need to get together and come up with an agreed set of rules to be used from this day on-- that on Judicial appointees the only thing that is open for examination and scrutiny is their competence to do the job...This wanting to know how they will rule on every case or nitpicking out one word in a ruling-- along with extremely intrusive invasions of their and their families private lives is losing us some excellent Judicial folks that don't even want to apply with the current system-- as well as making a mockery of seperation of the Judicial and Legislative branches...

I could care less if her husbands great great uncle twice removed was convicted for mopery with the intent to creep after consuming a jug of white lightning :roll:
Some of the best Constitutional scholars in the country could never pass the nitpicking interrogations these hearings have come to be.....
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Some of the best Constitutional scholars in the country could never pass the nitpicking interrogations these hearings have come to be.....
Amen. These hearings have gotten to be nothing but grandstanding and political posturing. If we could take the cameras out of the hearing room, it would have to help tremendously. And I'm sure that if we have a dem elected in 2008, the Republicans will feel they have every 'right' to get even.

Something needs to be changed. As you said OT, all that should matter is that the nominees are qualified to be a judge. To ask them how they are going to rule in advance is asking them to rule without even hearing all of the evidence.

Nothing more pompous and arrogant than the 'distinguished gentlemen' of the Senate.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Texan said:
Disagreeable said:
Sounds good to me. Split that Republican vote right down the middle. :D
Anybody that I've heard mentioned for the Republicans will either split them, or make them stay home. The best things conservatives could do is to find a strong, liberal, third party candidate to put up. Sort of a liberal Ross Perot. Maybe I'll just write-in your name. :p

The election is a long way off, but I get a big smile on my face when I see Bay Buchanan go ballistic at the mention of Rudy's name. He has the most favorable rating of the top Republicans with Dems and Independents. I really think too many things are against McCain, embracing of the right wing, his age, calling for more troops in Iraq. Mitt was pretty popular with some of the right wing bloggers until his letter about supporting Gays came out and now his pro-choice stand a few years ago is starting to hurt his popularity. Some of the Christian leaders had said earlier that they wouldn't support a Morman, though I think they backed off that, at least publicly. Brownback, Roy Moore (in AL), both very strong conservatives. Brownback might take the midwest, but Moore might take a chunk of southern votes. That leaves whoever the Republican Party is supporting in big trouble. So go for it, Senator Brownback. The more Republican/right wing candidates running, the more likely the Dems will win. :D
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Do you honest-to-goodness have that much faith in the Democrats?
:help: :dunce: :lol2:

Are you addressing my last post? I'm simply pointing out how the Republicans seem to be ready to self destruct in the 2008 presidential election. I don't believe a third party candidate can win, especially one that's anti-choice or has strong ties to the religious right. Good grief, even South Dakota rejected the abortion ban! I truly believe the Terri Schiavo fiasco was the moment of truth for many people who voted in this last election. To see Tom DeLay (who had agreed to pull the plug on his own father!) stand up and condemn Michael Schiavo and George W. Bush rush back from Texas to sign a bill, was a shock to many people. They realized their government was not adverse to stepping into the most private decisions a person can make in their lives. Most of them don't want the government making decisions about their personal lives.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Econ101:
Dis, can you post an article about Delay pulling the plug on his father?

I will post the correct article, but not the liberal version Dis is pushing....

The story:
CANYON LAKE, Texas - A family tragedy that unfolded in a Texas hospital during the fall of 1988 was a private ordeal - without judges, emergency sessions of Congress or the debate raging outside Terri Schiavo's Florida hospice.

The patient then was a 65-year-old drilling contractor, badly injured in a freak accident at his home. Among the family members keeping vigil at Brooke Army Medical Center was a grieving junior congressman - Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

the DeLay family endured its own wrenching end-of-life crisis. The man in a coma, kept alive by intravenous lines and oxygen equipment, was DeLay's father, Charles Ray DeLay.

Then, freshly reelected to a third term in the House, the 41-year-old DeLay waited, all but helpless, for the verdict of doctors.

In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly awaited the sad family consensus to let his father die.

"There was no point to even really talking about it," Maxine DeLay, the congressman's 81-year-old widowed mother, recalled in an interview last week. "There was no way [Charles] wanted to live like that. Tom knew - we all knew - his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."

The preliminary decision to withhold dialysis and other treatments fell to Maxine along with Randall and her daughter Tena."

the rest of the story:
Tom Delay is estranged from his mother Maxine Delay, his sister, Tena Delay Neislar, and from his two brothers, Randy Delay and Ray Delay. Family members say they are not sure why Tom broke off contact with them after their father's death in 1988. Charlie Ray Delay died on Dec. 14, 1988.

His family made a decision....he abided by it.....then didn't speak to them ever again......sounds like he disagreed with the decision.
 
Top